Hello Everybody,   
      
   The explanation of historical events has always been   
   the subject of wide debate by scholars and non-scholars   
   alike.  But what views shape those explanations?  Can   
   any particular view answer all the questions that come   
   to mind?  From what viewpoint should the observer base   
   his/her conclusions?   
      
   History is an interpretation of facts that have been   
   gathered.  Even the facts that have been gathered can   
   be open to question.  For example, who gathers the   
   facts can be just as important as the facts themselves.   
   And who is to say that all the facts gathered have   
   been accounted for?   
      
   Let us look at two views of history.  Perhaps there   
   are more, but I could find only two views that make   
   any modicum of sense.  And only one of those views   
   gives an explanation that answers all the questions.   
      
   The Accidental View of History -   
      
   This is the view most commonly believed.  Historical   
   events happen by accident, for no apparent reason.   
   They just happen.  And there is nothing, absolutely   
   nothing, that any ruler can do to keep those events   
   from happening.   
      
   "History is written more by accident than design,   
   often by the wholly irrational acts of madmen."   
   - James P. Warburg, The West in Crisis, (Garden   
   City, New York:Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1959), p. 20.   
      
   "History is much more the product of chaos than   
   of conspiracy. ...increasingly, policy makers are   
   overwhelmed by events and information."   
   - Zbigniew Brzezinski, The New York Times,   
   January 18, 1981, p. L 3   
      
   The Conspiratorial View of History -   
      
   This is the view most folks mistakenly believe is   
   total hogwash.  Historical events happen by design,   
   or for a reason(s).  These reasons are most often   
   kept secret from the general public.   
      
   Who in their right mind would hold this particular   
   view?  Aren't those who hold a conspiratorial view   
   of history of bunch of nutcakes?  Well, you tell   
   me -   
      
   "In politics, nothing happens by accident.  If it   
   happens, it was planned that way."   
   - Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States   
      
   Isn't that amazing?  Or maybe not so amazing, given   
   the fact that presidents and other leaders often make   
   plans to do one thing or another, for whatever reasons   
   of their own.  And nothing - I mean nothing - they   
   do is by accident.   
      
   If harmful events are planned - such as the Japanese   
   sneak attack on Pearl Harbor - it stands to reason that   
   those who were about to suffer the consequences would   
   have acted to prevent such a thing from happening.   
   Especially if they had known about the planned event   
   in advance.   
      
   Did FDR know about Japanese plans to bomb Pearl Harbor?   
   If so, why did he choose to let it happen?   
      
   Did George W. Bush know about terrorist plans to attack   
   America on 9-11?  If so, why did he choose to let it happen?   
      
   People expect government to protect them from harm.   
   Especially harmful events such as Pearl Harbor and 9-11.   
      
   But what happens when government fails to do its duty?   
   Why did government fail, when the people expected to be   
   kept safe?   
      
   There are only two explanations that are possible -   
      
   1. The events themselves were too powerful to have been prevented.   
      
   2. The events were allowed to occur because government wanted them   
      to occur.   
      
   So which is it?   
      
   You tell me.   
      
   --Lee   
      
      
    * SLMR 2.1a * BE A SAINT +   
      
   --- Maximus 3.01   
    * Origin: Xaragmata / Adelaide SA telnet://xaragmata.mooo.com (3:800/432)